First let's define SE spam...
Anything action one takes to increase one's search engine traffic. If you want to say that isn't true you then have to argue point by point on every aspect of site promotion.

You have to ask all the silly questions:
Is using an H1 tag spam?
Is using a nocode tag spam?
Is writing key word rich content spam?
Is building link pop spam?
Is having the key word in the URL spam?
And so on...

There are about 1000 of these, and the answer to all those questions is:
Yes, if you do it to increase search engine traffic. If you haven't manipulated a website to increase traffic then you are not an SEO.

Therefor:
all SEOs are spammers
all 'whitehat' SEOs are fools or hypocrites, or both
you are wearing a blackhat now and don't even know it

Let's not take it to the extreme of promoting a porn site under the keyword 'Barby'.

Is adding extra key words deceptive? Is using a style sheet to reduce the apparency of an H1 tag deceptive? Is feeding googlebot a meta-keywords tag while hiding them from the end user deceptive? How about rewriting dynamic URLs so that they appear static?

the whole black hat vs white hat thing is a marketing angle. nothing more. nothing less. I find it ironic how many people who push the hat issue were angry when I used it (http://www.blackhatseo.com) as a marketing angle too.

It truly amazes and astounds me and "many" others how "some" people wish to lump together and blur the lines between a spammer and a SEO who follows se guidelines.

These forums will have and do have the most numbers of "guests" who read in here daily. IMO it's not a good thing to be lumping together with this kind of thing. There is clearly a difference between firms who do 'follow' and firms that "don't" follow. People who "don't" follow se guidelines have a vested interest in wanting to be lumped together with those who "do".

This is about concepts not practice. I can nearly guaranty you that NFFC's sites would pass for what you would call clean. Yet I would call him an SE spammer, and I would call you an SE spammer and anybody who does anything to increase their 'natural rank'. To the search engines it is all the same thing, you manipulate your results and you are tampering with their algo which makes you a spammer.

First let's define SE spam...
Anything action one takes to increase one's search engine traffic.
...
Therefor:
all SEOs are spammers
all 'whitehat' SEOs are fools or hypocrites, or both
you are wearing a blackhat now and don't even know it

Are, definitions that make an entire argument.<sigh> I miss doing philosophy.

"therfor" (sic) is such a wonderful word. Therefore is suppossed to mean "As I have proven", not "from this definition I conclude". IMHO, the definition of spam presented is erroneous and open for debate, as is your (never given and pre-assummed) definition of the "hats". Therefore (and I do mean to use that word), as I do not agree to your definitions of the two most important words in your argument (white-hat and spam), any conclusions drawn from such a definition are not worth anything.

As spam is so difficult to define, lets talk instead about a far more real and tangible issue: deception and deceptive advertising as it relates to search engines. You rightly ask in a later post:

Quote:

And what is 'deceptive'?

Which leads to a bunch more interesting questions that I am going to number for future reference:

Quote:

1. Is adding extra key words deceptive?
2. Is using a style sheet to reduce the apparency of an H1 tag deceptive?
3. Is feeding googlebot a meta-keywords tag while hiding them from the end user deceptive?
4. How about rewriting dynamic URLs so that they appear static?

de·cep·tion
n.
1. The use of deceit.
2. The fact or state of being deceived.
3. A ruse; a trick.

So, if you use a technique that is deceitful, a ruse or a trick, that deception.

Lets relate this back to the questions numbered and raised. IMHO, and we are all free to debate this, neither 2 nor 4 is deception. Number one I don't really understand, so IMHO that makes 2 out of three not deception.

Number three, however, while deception, is ineffective. Showing Google a "meta-keywords" tag will have zero effect. A trick? Yes. Done with the intent to deceive? Yes. Does it acheive anything? No.

It is like all the American 20 year olds that come to Australia and buy alcohol with a fake ID because they think the legal drinking age is 21 (its 18). They may have aimed to deceive people, but the deception has no effect.

Some of your questions are not only not deception, but the right way to do things. The Hippy in me thinks the web should be free for all to use, and clearly defined page elements, headings 1, 2 and 3 are all useful for accessability reasons. Controlling the way they look with CSS is fine. If, however, all text is in H1 tags and made to look like normal text, in teh belief this will influence SE results, this may become deception. The technique of using headings is not in and of itself deceptivem, but it can be. The devil is in the detail.

I think it's time we stopped talking about spam and cloaking and started talking about deceptive advertising....
By way of example, let's consider Google's organic SERP for "search engine optimization resources":

The other deceptive means, "deceiving Google using cloaking or some other technique", is what is really interesting. In terms of spam, these are both well worth reading, but in the end, I think Spam is a ruse that this industry throws up to muddy waters. Spam shouldn't be the issue, the issue should be deceptive advertising.

Under such a debate, whether all SEOs are spammers is irrelevant. The real question is are all SEOs deceptive? To that, my answer is no. I have seen many SEOed sites that I would not define in anyway as deceptive.

The second conclusion drawn, that "all 'whitehat' SEOs are fools or hypocrites, or both", is also not true if the definition of a white-hat SEO I someone that does not use SEO techniques create deceptive results.

So, tell me ihelpy, DW and other self proclaimed 'clean SEOs' which of the above is spam and which is not? Do you think Sergey and Larry would agree with you?

littleman, I just don't get it.

Why is spam, in your opinion, a problem? Are / should Search Engines, most specifically Google, be the only definer of what is right or wrong?

I just don't get where you are coming from on this issue at all, and perhaps a little clarrification of your views and perspective will go a long way to helping me understand what you hope to achieve from this debate.

I have another question for you. You originally defined spam as "Anything action one takes to increase one's search engine traffic". Does that make writing an extra page spam? Does any action ever taken in which search engines are even considered a spammy decision? If not, where is the line you personally draw?

"therfor" (sic) is such a wonderful word. Therefore is suppossed to mean "As I have proven", not "from this definition I conclude". IMHO, the definition of spam presented is erroneous and open for debate, as is your (never given and pre-assummed) definition of the "hats". Therefore (and I do mean to use that word), as I do not agree to your definitions of the two most important words in your argument (white-hat and spam), any conclusions drawn from such a definition are not worth anything.